6.5 Grendel Forum
The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - Printable Version

+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL DISCUSSION FORUMS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: 6.5 Grendel Military & Law Enforcement (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. (/showthread.php?tid=19116)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - Gusmeister - 07-05-2019

As many of you have suggested, the M1 Carbine was a pretty ideal solution to the problem. I am a giant 45 acp pistol fan but few can hit anything at anything beyond spitting distance (conscripts under duress). So while the M1 Carbine it much more to carry than a 1911, it is profoundly and overwhelmingly more likely to hit it's target in battle than the 1911. So if there is any practical or possible way for a man to carry something bigger than the handgun, the M1 Carbine was a brilliant 1938 decision. It would be the same thing today between carrying a 9mm handgun vs a 10" 300 BLK SBR. The difference in hitting ability under stress is overwhelming.

But like any design, time & testing allows for improvement. The M2 has a sorted past at best. But what if the cartridge had been improved? Maybe neck it down to 6.5 mm and stretch it's effectiveness out another 100 yards. Maybe a redesign for a different cartridge and for reliable larger magazines. I do not know what is possible with this design but nobody seemed interested in an improvement.

In any case.... it is a great rifle with a great cartridge. Being dated does not make it bad.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - stanc - 07-06-2019

Gusmeister Wrote:As many of you have suggested, the M1 Carbine was a pretty ideal solution to the problem. I am a giant 45 acp pistol fan but few can hit anything at anything beyond spitting distance (conscripts under duress). So while the M1 Carbine it much more to carry than a 1911, it is profoundly and overwhelmingly more likely to hit it's target in battle than the 1911. So if there is any practical or possible way for a man to carry something bigger than the handgun, the M1 Carbine was a brilliant 1938 decision.
Actually, there was nothing ideal or brilliant about the M1 carbine. It was an unimaginative solution to a problem that existed only because Army leadership chose to field a heavy battle rifle -- the M1 Garand -- that was no more than an incremental improvement on the M1903 Springfield.

A truly brilliant decision would've been to develop the M1 Garand around a cartridge similar to today's .30 HRT, or the .30 RAR.

[Image: 30HRTJPG.jpg]
[Image: 527294.jpg]

That would have enabled the M1 Garand to be the size and weight of a Mini-14, making it unnecessary to develop the M1 carbine.
Give it a "straight-line" stock, and feed it with 30-round magazines instead of 8-round clips. Now, that would have been brilliant.

[Image: 800px-RugerMini14-F30GB005.jpg]

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - Kswhitetails - 07-06-2019

It would have. Would be~!

But I ask, what's the difference between that and the M1? It'd still be heavier, and harder to manufacture on such a protracted schedule, wouldn't it be? Part of what I love about the M1 story - I admit to be no expert here - is the fact that it was as successful as it was - continues to be - despite being thrown together in response to a need for our war fighter. It had to be reliable functioning, easy to deploy, and would need ammunition yesterday that we could produce like raw sewage from New York City. The straight walled case and small 30cal bullet helped here quite a bit I'd imagine.

The M1 carbine is a perfect example of "Necessity is the mother of invention". And our manufacturers were able to answer the call.

Was it perfect? Ha. Has any weapon we've fielded ever been given that title?

I do like that last pic though. That's more than a little interesting. What is it?

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - JASmith - 07-06-2019

stanc Wrote:Actually, there was nothing ideal or brilliant about the M1 carbine. It was an unimaginative solution to a problem that existed only because Army leadership chose to field a heavy battle rifle -- the M1 Garand -- that was no more than an incremental improvement on the M1903 Springfield.

A truly brilliant decision would've been to develop the M1 Garand around a cartridge similar to today's .30 HRT, or the .30 RAR...
This one of those rare occasions when I actually agree with Stan!

The .276 Pedersen in the Garand also comes to mind ... but that would have been a full size battle rifle.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - stanc - 07-06-2019

Kswhitetails Wrote:It would have. Would be~!

But I ask, what's the difference between that and the M1? It'd still be heavier, and harder to manufacture on such a protracted schedule, wouldn't it be?
The M1 Garand is 44" long and weighs 9.5 lbs due to the full-power .30-06 cartridge it fires. Had it been designed as an assault rifle that fired an intermediate-power round similar to the Russian 7.62x39, the M1 rifle should've weighed about 6.5 lbs. With a 36" long, 6.5-lb rifle, firing lightweight, low-recoil ammo from 30-rd mags, why would there be any need for a 36" long, 5.5-lb carbine?

Kswhitetails Wrote:I do like that last pic though. That's more than a little interesting. What is it?
Ruger Mini-14 GB. Made for the military and law enforcement market.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - Gusmeister - 07-06-2019

Much of the brilliance I see in the M1 Carbine is it was made on a 1938 Army request. It's easy from a 21st century perspective to know what do design. It's just Monday morning quarterbacking though. But go back to a post WW1 and pre WW2 design that served well for us and our allies into 1970's. Maybe the design was an engineering dead end and improvement would have been too difficult. But today the rifle/cartridge still do what they were intended to do though certainly outdated.

I hear you guys on the Garand. John Garand had first built it for the 276 but the Army wanted it in 30-06. Despite it's flaws (everything has them) it served very well. Just not very long. Not ideal but it worked very very well. It too was brilliant in its day.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - Gusmeister - 07-06-2019

stanc Wrote:Ruger Mini-14 GB. Made for the military and law enforcement market.

Stan.... as soon as I saw the pick it reminded of the A-Team TV show.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - Shooterrex - 07-06-2019

All I remember is my great uncle telling me he had traded for a carbine. When he shot a German running away he saw dust fly from the Germans overcoat 3 times. Traded back for a full size M1 because what he shot with a 30.06 stayed shot.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - Fess - 07-07-2019

Gusmeister Wrote:Stan.... as soon as I saw the pick it reminded of the A-Team TV show.

I remember joking that I would never want to have one of the rifles used by the A-Team. Every week they shot hundreds of rounds and never hit anything!

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - stanc - 07-07-2019

Gusmeister Wrote:Much of the brilliance I see in the M1 Carbine is it was made on a 1938 Army request.
:confused: I'm not seeing how there is any brilliance in the leadership reaching the logical conclusion that the M1 Garand was a poor choice to equip many Army personnel.

Gusmeister Wrote:It's easy from a 21st century perspective to know what do design. It's just Monday morning quarterbacking though.
Hindsight is what what enables us to judge whether a past decision was brilliant, dumb, or just so-so. And I'm not seeing anything especially brilliant about the M1 rifle or M1 carbine.

The M1 rifle was a continuation of the same design philosophy as its predecessor, the M1903. The only significant difference is that gas operation was subsituted for manual operation.

The M1 rifle broke no new ground. It was just more of the same, an improved version of the rifle used to fight the First World War. Which is sad in retrospect, because it could have been the game changer that the German Sturmgewehr was a decade later.

The M1 carbine and its cartridge are a mix of somewhat advanced thinking (compact, lightweight, low recoil, large magazine capacity) and outmoded designs (conventional "drop comb" stock, round nose bullets). As if they wanted to make an assault rifle, but couldn't break free from old mindsets.

Gusmeister Wrote:But go back to a post WW1 and pre WW2 design that served well for us and our allies into 1970's. Maybe the design was an engineering dead end and improvement would have been too difficult. But today the rifle/cartridge still do what they were intended to do though certainly outdated.
There are some improvements that could easily have been made. Giving the M2 carbine a "straight-line" stock would've improved full-auto controllability, and giving the cartridge a spitzer bullet designed for early yaw in soft tissue would've increased terminal effects. But, after WWII there was no interest in improving the M1/M2 carbine, because the decision had already been made that it was to be replaced along with the M1 rifle.

Gusmeister Wrote:I hear you guys on the Garand. John Garand had first built it for the 276 but the Army wanted it in 30-06. Despite it's flaws (everything has them) it served very well. Just not very long. Not ideal but it worked very very well. It too was brilliant in its day.
Yes, the M1 rifle served well. But, it could have been so much better.

And BTW, John Garand never wanted to go with .276 caliber. All of his early development efforts had been on trying to make a .30 caliber rifle. John Pedersen convinced the Army that a .30 caliber semi-auto was not feasible, so Garand was directed to design a rifle chambered for the .276 Pedersen cartridge.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - VASCAR2 - 07-07-2019

One of the reasons the US adopted the M-1 Garand as a 30 caliber is the amount of ammunition in inventory. The US was already geared up to produce 30-06 ammunition. I think future conflicts were on the minds of the leadership and they chose to stick with proven or known commodity. In the mid 30’s the world wasn’t looking to mechanized land, air combined arms tactics but many were still focused on the tactics of the first Word War.

The power of the 30-06 is a two edge sword but the common use of black tip amour piercing ammo tends to suggest a desire to breach barriers. In the 1930’s the M-1 Garand was a significant improvement over bolt action rifles.

Had a designer handed an early M-16 to a general in the 1930’s I don’t think they would have been any more impressed than the Army was in the 1960’s. I think most would’ ve looked at a 22 caliber or other intermediate cartridge with disdain.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - stanc - 07-07-2019

VASCAR2 Wrote:One of the reasons the US adopted the M-1 Garand as a 30 caliber is the amount of ammunition in inventory. The US was already geared up to produce 30-06 ammunition. I think future conflicts were on the minds of the leadership and they chose to stick with proven or known commodity. In the mid 30’s the world wasn’t looking to mechanized land, air combined arms tactics...
The world may not have been looking to fast-paced, mechanized combat, but Germany certainly was. In the mid-1930s, Germany introduced the general purpose machine gun, and they were working on intermediate-power rifle ammo that led to the development and fielding of an assault rifle.

Meanwhile, the US was still using heavy, watercooled machine guns employed for trench warfare, and developing what was essentially an improved M1903 Springfield rifle. But then, as George Chinn said, Germany always sought to create tomorrow's weapons today, while we sought to develop yesterday's weapons soon.

VASCAR2 Wrote:The power of the 30-06 is a two edge sword but the common use of black tip amour piercing ammo tends to suggest a desire to breach barriers.
Concur. The extensive use of light armored vehicles by German forces would seem to have made it prudent to use AP ammo, instead of lead-core Ball.

VASCAR2 Wrote:In the 1930’s the M-1 Garand was a significant improvement over bolt action rifles.
Significant, yes. Great, no. It was just more of the same, a better battle rifle. It wasn't the "game changer" that the German Sturmgewehr was.

The US could have fielded an assault rifle in the 1930s, were it not for a lack of vision. All of the pieces were there. They just needed to be put together.

Intermediate-Power Cartridge (.30 Remington)

[Image: 30RemingtonREM-UMC-Nk-FMJ2.jpg]



Straight-Line Stock (M1917 Winchester Machine Rifle)
[Image: tumblr_nwqav4Noao1s57vgxo1_1280.jpg]



30-Round Magazine (M1920 Garand Rifle)
[Image: Garand_M1920_c.jpg]

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - Fess - 07-07-2019

The wisdom of adopting the .276 Pedersen is another topic and was discussed in a previous thread, http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?2663-276-Pedersen-Debunking-the-Myth. The "existing inventory" issue, as it turned out in hindsight, was incorrect. According to Hatcher, the US had used up all of its WWI 30-06 inventory by 1936, about the time the M1 Garand was entering service. It would have been easy to predict this at the time.

The tooling issue in not as big a deal as many believe. I am familiar with that type of equipment, having worked at a plant that did deep-drawing, machining and assembly of brass and steel components. The most important thing was that the .276 Pederson was similar in length and diameter than the 30-06. Deep-drawing and assembly equipment are largely designed around the product length, so a longer cartridge might have been a problem. As it was, the existing equipment could have been easily adapted to the new cartridge. The actual punches and dies were non-durable tooling. In other words, even though they are working with brass, they are replaced fairly often. The cost savings in raw materials, brass and lead, would have quickly paid for the modifications. While writing this, it just occurred to me that it is possible that the Pedersen cartridge was designed around the existing tooling.

There also been some discussion about what the final version of the .276 Pedersen would have been. A 2016 article on TFB stated that the army actually intended to adopt a larger .276 cartridge that had the same size base as the 30-06. That article claimed that the change would have been made to allow the use of more varieties of (less dense) propellants and longer bullets. On the other hand, others state that the larger-based round was just a semi-rimmed version of the original, designed for experiments in existing machineguns designed around a 0.471" base. Somewhere on the interwebs is a site that has photographs of several of the .276 Pederson variants, including the semi-rimmed version, but I can't seem to find it now.

The US military argued that the .276 Pedersen would add unnecessary complexity to the supply chain. Nevertheless, by mid-war, they ended up needing to supply 30-06 (loose, in belts, stripper clips, and enbloc clips), .30 carbine and .45 acp at the front line.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - Gusmeister - 07-07-2019

Rather than the fantasy of what any of us think should have been done (because we are smarter than everybody else), the US Govt pulled 2 aces out of the deck when they came up with the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine. They and their ammo served us well (IMO brilliantly). There is a giant gap in what is said and in what was actually accomplished. Yes, they could have been better. Yes, they should have been better. Of course the challenge is to get 2 people to agree on what "better" is. But they served our country in times of great need and they served brilliantly. Just my opinion.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - stanc - 07-08-2019

Fess Wrote:The tooling issue in not as big a deal as many believe. I am familiar with that type of equipment, having worked at a plant that did deep-drawing, machining and assembly of brass and steel components. The most important thing was that the .276 Pederson was similar in length and diameter than the 30-06. Deep-drawing and assembly equipment are largely designed around the product length, so a longer cartridge might have been a problem. As it was, the existing equipment could have been easily adapted to the new cartridge. The actual punches and dies were non-durable tooling. In other words, even though they are working with brass, they are replaced fairly often. The cost savings in raw materials, brass and lead, would have quickly paid for the modifications. While writing this, it just occurred to me that it is possible that the Pedersen cartridge was designed around the existing tooling.
That seems unlikely to me. I would think that if Pedersen wanted to use as much of the existing tooling as possible, the cartridge would've had the same rim/base diameter as for .30-06, and a .30-caliber projectile. Instead, all of the case and bullet dimensions are different.

Fess Wrote:The US military argued that the .276 Pedersen would add unnecessary complexity to the supply chain. Nevertheless, by mid-war, they ended up needing to supply 30-06 (loose, in belts, stripper clips, and enbloc clips), .30 carbine and .45 acp at the front line.
Yes, they were able to handle three different calibers, but they clearly did not like it. As soon as they could after WWII, they set about replacing .30-06, .30 Carbine, and .45 ACP (for shoulder weapons) with a single caliber: 7.62 NATO.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - 1Shot - 07-08-2019

Stories of the M1 carbine that have been told to me by the men that used them in battle.
One a WWII Marine. He was issued the M1 carbine being a 60mm mortar man. His first action that he saw was in an assault on a small part of an island that had a look out and communications post on it as a warning station for one of the larger island chains that invasion was planed for. He said they hit the beach in rubber boats trying to sneak up on the japs. When he got out of the boat he looked up and all he saw was green teeth and a bayonet that looked 3 feet long. He said that the japs came running out of the jungle toward them and the one that he fixated on had his bayoneted rifle held high screaming something as he ran. He dropped to one knee and started firing his carbine. He said that he knew that he was hitting him in the torso because he could see dust coming off his uniform but the jap kept coming. He then dropped his aim and shot him in the legs and he went down. This Jap as well as about 30 others were taken care of in just a short time and they accomplished their objective. He said that he went back to the jap that he knew he had killed and he counted 5 hits in his torso two in one leg and one in the other. He then said the he went over to where another marine had been killed and picked up his Thompson sub machine gun and ammo with support gear. He then went up to the nearest palm tree and while holding the barrel of that M1 carbine he swung it against the tree and beat it into pieces and then threw it in the ocean. He said that the Thompson was heaver but he never had to worry about a jap not going down when he turned it loose on him.

Another WWII Army veteran told this to me. He was in Hawaii when the japs attacked Peral Harbor and said he wanted to go kill japs but in the wisdom of the Army they sent him to kill Germans. After D day of which he went ashore on D+2 as a squad leader sometime after the break out of the hedgerow country his platoon assaulted a two story house that the Germans were using as a artillery observation post. After taking the house that they wanted to use for the same purpose. It was getting late in the evening and would be dark in about an hour he decided to post his squad in the down stairs part of the house for the night. Everyone took off their equipment and most leaned their rifles against the wall near them and all of a sudden there was a shot fired outside and one of his squad members that just happened to walk past where one of the windows had been fell dead from a shot the head. As he ran over to the man he then looked out the window and saw a German jump up from behind some big rocks about 100 yards away and start running away. He said that he just reached down and picked up the closest weapon and it was a M1 carbine. He said that he fired the whole magazine at the German and never touched him but he said that he bet that the fellow was still running. He did not like the M1 carbine, he LOVED the M1 Garand and he somehow brought his home with him after the war and it was a WINCHESTER of which I got to handle after he told me this story while in his home.


My hunting buddy was a Marine that did three tours in Vietnam. He was in a helicopter outfit. His first tour was the first Marine helicopters that went to Vietnam. They had not been in country but a few days and went out to take some grunts out someplace and on the way back they had engine trouble and had to put down. Since anyplace you were in Vietnam was hostile country especially at night which Charlie owned it was not a pleasant thought of being without a weapon that could put out some heavy firepower volume if you got shot down or had be only with just your small crew like that night if Charles decided to visit and you had to leave the chopper. They did not have any trouble that night and another chopper came out the next morning with what was needed to repair theirs. Within just a couple days my buddy said he had scrounged up what we wanted as a personal defense weapon. It was a M2 carbine, the ARVN had lots of them, that he sawed the barrel off where the bayonet stud handguard clamp ended and sawed off the stock and fashioned a pistol grip. He filled his M14 ammo pouches with 30 round magazines and also filled a tool bag full and placed them under his seat on the chopper so he could grab them in a hurry if needed. He made a sling that he could strap the "pistol" across his chest. He never had to use this against hostiles but he said that it was a pretty good security blanket. He said on a chopper an M14 was hard to handle and you never had it at hand when it was really needed. He mostly used the machine guns mounted on the choppers. By his second tour he had an M16 and was then a crew chief. He liked the M16 for the type of close range fighting they usually faced in Vietnam once they got the bugs worked out of it and issued cleaning equipment because like any weapon you need to keep it clean for it to function.

My dad was issued an M1 carbine during WWII but he was in the Army Air Corps, 15th Airforce with B24s. Only thing living he ever shot with it was an alligator while in Trinidad after the war in Europe was over and they were getting ready to head toward Japan.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - Gusmeister - 07-08-2019

Great stories 1Shot. Thank you for sharing.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - stanc - 07-08-2019

Gusmeister Wrote:Rather than the fantasy of what any of us think should have been done (because we are smarter than everybody else)...
LOL.

Gusmeister Wrote:...the US Govt pulled 2 aces out of the deck when they came up with the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine.
More like a jack and a queen. Germany drew aces, with the MG42 and StG44.

Gusmeister Wrote:Yes, they could have been better. Yes, they should have been better.
Precisely.

Gusmeister Wrote:Of course the challenge is to get 2 people to agree on what "better" is.
Even the US Army eventually (three decades later!) acknowledged that the assault rifle was a better idea than the battle rifle.

Gusmeister Wrote:But they served our country in times of great need and they served brilliantly.
They were used because nobody had the vision to make something better. That doesn't make them brilliant.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - n9nwo - 07-08-2019

There are those who still love the XM8

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - JASmith - 07-09-2019

stanc Wrote:...They were used because nobody had the vision to make something better. That doesn't make them brilliant.
Or did the technology and then-current design practice keep a better design from appearing? For example, the the first patent for a turbojet was granted in 1930. The standard designs of the 1950s were quite different due to a lot of development effort.

The centrifugal-compression jet engine was all but obsolete by 1960 even though aircraft like the USAF T37 continued to fly with them for at least another 30 years. A bunch of us have 6kHz hearing impairment from being oin or near the the "Tweet" for too long.

In other words, 'brilliance" needs to be defined by the then-current environment rather than the technology standards 90 years later.